Dunwoodie Communications v. Noto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dunwoodie Communications v. Noto

225 A.D.2d 484, 639 N.Y.2d 376, 639 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3172

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 26, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 484 (Dunwoodie Communications v. Noto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dunwoodie Communications v. Noto, 225 A.D.2d 484, 639 N.Y.2d 376, 639 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

By negotiating and entering into an agreement with the overlandlord, Park South, prior to 120 days before the expiration of the parties’ sublease, plaintiff breached the unambiguous terms of the sublease (see, Sutton v East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 NY2d 550, 555). The 120 day restriction was a negotiated provision for the protection of defendant’s interests.

The requested Yellowstone injunction was properly denied since plaintiff is unable to demonstrate its ability to cure its default (see, Cemco Rests, v Ten Park Ave. Tenants, 135 AD2d 461, lv dismissed 72 NY2d 840) and since this does not involve the termination of a lease but solely a rental abatement. We also note that the notice to cure in this case sufficiently apprised plaintiff of its default and its obligation to cure it.

We have considered plaintiffs other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By negotiating and entering into an agreement with the overlandlord, Park South, prior to 120 days before the expiration of the parties’ sublease, plaintiff breached the unambiguous terms of the sublease (see, Sutton v East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 NY2d 550, 555). The 120 day restriction was a negotiated provision for the protection of defendant’s interests.

The requested Yellowstone injunction was properly denied since plaintiff is unable to demonstrate its ability to cure its default (see, Cemco Rests, v Ten Park Ave. Tenants, 135 AD2d 461, lv dismissed 72 NY2d 840) and since this does not involve the termination of a lease but solely a rental abatement. We also note that the notice to cure in this case sufficiently apprised plaintiff of its default and its obligation to cure it.

We have considered plaintiffs other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 484, 639 N.Y.2d 376, 639 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunwoodie-communications-v-noto-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack